In various Near Eastern religions the morning stars were venerated as gods and goddesses. Many of them had an important role in the pantheon, esp. Venus. In this reference they are identifed among the sons of God, or angels, who were created by God for special service. In Gen. 1 the stars were created on the fourth day, but here they existed at the initial stages of creation. This apparent discrepancy indicates that “the morning stars” in this context is primarily a term that forms a synonymous parallelism with “the sons of God,” who, it is assumed, existed prior to the creation of the earth. It is, therefore, used metaphorically to refer to these heavenly creatures independent of the existence of the physical stars.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
John E. Hartley Commentary on Job 38:7
From the New International Commentary on the Old Testament:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
Here's Robert Alter's comments regarding Job 38:7:
when the morning stars sang together. The verb for singing, ron, is from the same root as renanah “glad song,” which Job (3:7) wished to expunge from the night he was conceived. The morning stars are also a counterpoint to the stars of dawn on the night of conception that Job wished never to appear. This splendid vision of the celestial beings joining in joyous song in celebration of creation is not intimated in other biblical accounts of how God created the world
On the other side:-
While Philo himself calls these 'sons of God' angels in one place, he later called them 'good and excellent men' Q. Gen. 1.92). Moreover the Targums and the Rabbinic literature are unanimous in viewing the 'sons of God' as human beings. Targum Onkelos on Genesis 6:2 and 4 reads 'sons of princes' (or great men, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has the same. Targum Neofiti has 'sons of the Judges' in both verses.
Tosefta, Sotah 3: 9a interprets 'sons of God' as men of the generation of the flood. In the Midrash Rabbah, they are understood as 'sons of judges' and as leaders (Gen. R. 26.5 on Gn. 6:2, quoting Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, c. AD 140), or as the generation of men at the time of the flood. Symmachus translates Genesis 6:2 as 'the sons of the rulers.'
Although this material is admittedly somewhat later than 1 Enoch and Jubilees, which are both to be dated in the second century BC, the citations from Philo and the Targums are certainly not irrelevant for New Testament exegesis-indeed, the Rabbinic material generally represents a stream of Jewish tradition which is certainly relevant as a background for New Testament studies. And the citations in this second group are diverse and frequent enough to give strong indication of the existence of a 'non-angelic' view of the 'sons of God' in Judaism, especially more orthodox Judaism, before or during the time of the New Testament (Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, IVP, 1988, pp 211,212).
https://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/morningstars.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/1247599/Inana_and_Sukaletuda_A_Sumerian_Astral_Myth
So the question - how many morning stars?
Duncan, the comments I posted from Hartley and Alter strictly pertained to Job 38:7, whereas the information you posted deals with Gen. 6:1-4. Would it not be a stretch to understand the sons of God in Job (especially Job 38) to be sons of men? Besides the mentions of sons in Job 1 & 2, the sons of God of Job 38 sing when the earth's foundations are established. That would seem to rule out men being those sons of God.
To be consistent, I understand sons of God and morning stars within the context of utterance.
Whedon's Commentary on Job 38:7: Whether the interpretation given to “the morning stars,” spoken of above, be that they belong to the inanimate or animate creation, we are justified in the remark that their creation preceded that of this world. The present allusion to “sons of God” makes it clear that there were conscious and joyous beings of a high grade in existence before the founding of our world; that is, before the creative work described in Genesis 1. This fact leads to the wider inference, that the whole of the universe was not created at once.
George Haydock's Commentary on Job 38:7: Sons. Septuagint, "all my angels." Hence it appears that the angels were among the first of God's works, formed probably at the same time with the heavens, (Calmet) or light, Genesis i. 3. (Haydock) --- The praise of the stars is figurative, (Calmet) as they tend to raise our hearts to God by their beauty, (Haydock) whereas that of the angels is real. (Calmet)
Job 38 MT does not say sons of God.
LXX is interpretation of its time.
Duncan, you've got me puzzled. The MT doesn't have "sons of God?" First, let me address your LXX comment. The LXX is sometimes more accurate than the MT; but it's translation Greek that is probably faithful in most instances.
Regarding the "sons of God" and the MT:
See https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/sons-of-god.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/07/sons-of-god-in-old-testament-quotes.html
https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/B/bene-elohim.html
There are two morning stars, not many. The tradition for this is far older than the MT or LXX. So I have no reason to think that the LXX is more accurate in this case, with a much older term being reintroduced in the MT. The definite article is missing from job 38. Inconsistent with the earlier examples in job.
My comments pertained to the sons of God part for Job 38:7. Clearly, sons of God are mentioned in the MT.
Concerning the morning stars, what justifies us in saying there's only 2? References would be helpful. Why do most texts now just say "morning stars" without indicating there's only 2 of them?
I was talking about the LXX being more accurate at times than MT--not always being preferable to MT. LXX has "stars" for the first part of Job 38:7 and "my angels" for the last portion. The angels phrasing is basically interpretive of "sons of God, which seems justified in light of the context and Job 1 & 2. Remember also how the Targum of Job handles this passage.
I don't see much significance with the definite article missing in 38:7. This is a common phenomenon is Greek lit. The sons of God in 38:7 sing out joyfully when the earth is founded or when the stars are created. Who else would those sons be, but angels?
Vulgate: cum me laudarent simul astra matutina et iubilarent omnes filii Dei
See pages 20-21 of this work too: https://books.google.com/books?id=GRqPh416VccC&pg=PA20&dq=job+38:7+two+morning+stars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj60bz7nIrgAhUPU98KHSYwAngQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=job%2038%3A7%20two%20morning%20stars&f=false
Here is another perspective from Francis I Andersen (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries). His comments pertain to Job 38:7:
"God was not solitary when he started this world. His world was already populous with creatures: ‘divine’ beings (literally sons of God), the angels of later theology, whom we have already met in assembly in chapters 1 and 2. They celebrated with songs and
cheering the achievement of God. Unless parallelism points to the morning stars as an alternative name for the sons of God, these might be pre-eminent beings in the retinue, probably to be associated with the twin gods of Dawn and Dusk in Canaanite lore, or Venus as Lucifer and Hesperus in classical. It is noteworthy that 11QtgJob has completed the demythologizing, making the stars shine instead of sing, and calling the sons ‘angels’. Here already the exultant reaction of such superior creatures, so much nearer to God, is a call to Job to be amazed and to rejoice with them"
Not that I totally endorse all he's said.
In his Word Bible Commentary, David J.A. Clines writes:
The “sons of God” were in chap. 1 the attendants at the heavenly court (cf. Comment on 1:6). But here they seem rather to be the stars. The “stars of the morning” are the “stars of the (morning) twilight” at 3:9, the planets Venus and Mercury, harbingers of the coming day, which would also have been conceived of as living beings. In Gen 1:6 the stars are created after the earth, but the sequence of creation in Genesis 1 may not have been known to the author of Job. Are the morning stars named because the events celebrated took place in the morning (Peake)?
Edgar: Clines does not say that Job 38:7 should not read "sons of God," but admittedly he *interprets* the morning stars as those very sons of God and identifies them with Venus and Mercury, viewed as living creatures.
Firstly, there is no indication that "sons of God" does not belong in the text. On the other hand, he wants to make a distinction between the sons of God in 38:7 and those of Job 1 & 2, but he does not appeal to the lack of an article to make his point.
However, compare https://www.jstor.org/stable/4201484?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I am referring to the definite article in the Hebrew.
Any early tradition (Sumerian, Akkadian, etc.) of morning stars that applies it to anything other than two?
Isaiah 14:4-20 seems to parallel exactly how Athtar overthrew Baal Hadad and enthroned himself atop Mount Zaphon in the Baal Cycle of Ugarit. The mountains the same. Both deities are described as being the morning stars.
Duncan, I was talking about the definite article in Hebrew. Secondly, there is an Ugaritic parallel that does not limit the morning stars to just 2. See the Dictionary of Deities, page 798.
We cannot rule out an identity between Job 1 & 2 & 38:7, just because 38:7 does not have the definite article. Compare Psalm 29:1; 89:6.
On Isa. 14, see https://books.google.com/books?id=lhNyGFkT3QYC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=isaiah+14+morning+star+baal+cycle&source=bl&ots=KIbPVP5XPE&sig=ACfU3U1vqxUYTtjFCvcDLNfBrLmZDESyJQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT5M-okI3gAhUSTd8KHYAVCgkQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaiah%2014%20morning%20star%20baal%20cycle&f=false
Isn't there also just 1 morning star in Isa. 14?
Does the Greek legend give the same name to the mountain?
See the same dictionary on page 18.
In KTU the assembly of stars should not be confused with the morning stars.
Do you think it is right to compare the language and usage in psalms to job?
Are there other examples in Job or the Torah?
1) If I understand your question about the Greek legend, then my answer wouild be, I don't think so.
2) I can see why you might not link the assembly of stars with the morning stars, but many scholars do link them.
See page 12 of https://books.google.com/books?id=6Z7UCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&dq=morning+star+hebrew+bible+and+ugaritic+job+38:7&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU8cvIro7gAhVOc98KHdSgD2sQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=morning%20star%20hebrew%20bible%20and%20ugaritic%20job%2038%3A7&f=false
Christ is called the "bright morning star" (Rev 22:16) and he gives the "morning star" to his anointed conquerors.
3) I'm only comparing each book's use or non-use of the definite article: that is standard fare among Hebrew grammarians. But I would have no problem making broader comparisons between each book.
I'm pretty certain we can find examples where the same object is described both with and without the article. I don't have time to look now, but Gesenius and Waltke likely contain explanations of how the Hebrew article functions in this way.
Page 18 of the dictionary just mentions the parallelism contained in Job 38:7. Anything I'm missing?
Also see Frank Cross on the Council of YHWH in Isaiah: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/371161?journalCode=jnes
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585057?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
For the broader comparison but he does argue for this being a phenomenon of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). I think he is also arguing that the selections may not be random or arbitrary.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+Deities&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7x9P0mJDgAhWAQRUIHS6fAK8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=bene%20elohim&f=false
See all occurrences of ben elohim. Of particularity note is pg 795 although I cannot access page 794 for all the details regarding the definite article.
Just some points to note that may be obvious.
The morning stars are still visible in the morning when the assembly of stars are not, thus the name.
One of the "stars" (planets) is brighter than the other which could account for a "bright morning star" image.
Does Rev 22:6 have to be squared a against Matthew 2:2 in some way?
I think there are more questions than answers here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lhNyGFkT3QYC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=isaiah+14+morning+star+baal+cycle&source=bl&ots=KIbPVP5XPE&sig=ACfU3U1vqxUYTtjFCvcDLNfBrLmZDESyJQ&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=zaphon&f=false
Not had time to read this yet:-
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=lts_fac_pubs
Not a big fan of Heiser, but I will give it a read.
On the use and non-use of the Hebrew article, see Waltke (Syntax), 13.7: https://books.google.com/books?id=jZlwYGilLW0C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=use+and+non-use+of+definite+in+hebrew&source=bl&ots=_ChPyCe3sj&sig=ACfU3U3RGzTKGKgrSW_AuJ5a5-dQmcSMUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjy-JrD-5DgAhWmhOAKHff9Big4ChDoATAFegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=use%20and%20non-use%20of%20definite%20in%20hebrew&f=false
Note the first sentence of Waltke, section 13.7.
It's analytic (self-evident) that the morning stars are still visible in the morning, but there's some question as to whether morning stars mean 2 stars or more than 2. Furthermore, one must wrestle with the fact that these stars cry when earth is created and they are apparently parallel with (the) son of God. See http://javathescript.com/documents/Woods.Isa%2014%20II_.pdf
I don't connect Matthew 2:2 with Revelation 22:16: IMO, the thrust is not the same and we're dealing with the Magi there. The Revelation "morning star" language is more easily connected to the Tanakh.
Despite some obscurities, the bottom line seems clear enough: there are good reasons to view the morning stars of Job 38:7 as angels, which in fact, most scholars do.
I've seen Heiser's dissertation comment son this issue, and think I disagree with him, but he's worth reading IMO.
Compare https://books.google.com/books?id=lT-Q6afoSYkC&pg=PT47&dq=jonathan+ben+dov+astronomy+job+38:7&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc4Jrig5HgAhWRmOAKHXwnDzgQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=jonathan%20ben%20dov%20astronomy%20job%2038%3A7&f=false
Allison, Dale C. "What Was the Star that Guided the Magi?" Bible Review 9 (1993): 20-24, 63.
I think Allison believes the star that guided the Magi was really an angel and he might connect the star with the reference in Job 38. I have not read is article, but saw remarks concerning it.
Another reference worth consulting is https://www.scribd.com/document/223944558/The-Hebrew-Conception-of-the-World#logout
Notice the discussion of Isaiah 14:12 here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2052-astronomy
I do not have access to scribd.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=TcsNAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=morning+star
Not sure what pg 77 is talking about.
From the Jewish encyclopedia.
"It is usually claimed that by the word "Helel" , "son of the morning," in Isa. xiv. 12, the morning star, or, more correctly, one of the two morning stars, is meant;"
Allison makes his arguments on the basis of the assumption that job 38:7 is synonymous parallelism rather than hierarchy. They both cry out but no connection between "morning stars (planets)" (two only) & sons of god - unless there are only two sons of god.
KOKAB are planets & the feminine form specifically means Venus.
Just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxpCNwoEWk
I would now like to read Allison article in full as he does not seem a slouch on his research.
Scribd does offer a 30 day trial, and I believe the work might be available elsewhere online. The link for page 77 did not show me anything, but I'll try to find it later.
I guess you noticed that the Jewish Encyclopedia also discounts the explanation referenced above for Isa. 14:12.
Kokab are planets? That seems to clash with the word's many occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. Compare Judges 5:20 for instance. Yeah, Allison may be no slouch but I find some of his ideas untenable.
There is a paper by Allison here: https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/1879/3196
Here's a quote from the Allison article:
It was this Watcher that the magi followed. One also finds the angelic interpretation of Matthew's star, or acknowledgement of its possibility, in, amongst others, Ps.-Caesarius of Nazianzen, Ps.-Theodotos of Ancyra, Chrysostom, Remigius of Auxerre, Thedore the Studite, Isho’dad of Merv, Theophylact, Solomon of Khilât, Bar-Hebraeus, Thomas Aquinas, and Maldonatus (full documentation in Allison 2005:17–41). It is also pertinent that Christian artistic depictions of the nativity sometimes replace Bethlehem's star with an angel or show both an angel and a star (Cardini 1993:47–48, with plates 3 [the star with a face], 6, 12, 19, 21; Réau 1957:249; Schiller 1971:101–102, with plates 262, 269, 270, 272, 275).
He likewise seems to explain Job 38:7 as a reference to angels.
"He likewise seems to explain Job 38:7 as a reference to angels." - I did already state this and his assumption of parallelism within Job 38:7.
Judges 5:20 is LBH again, but is imagery and analogy of mesillah is not contradictory. How do you think this contradicts planets?
What source confirms that kokab means planets at Judges 5:20? Was it the planets that fought against Sisera and his army? Or was it the stars?
In the Dictionary of Deities, page 812, we read:
In the poetic contexts of Judg 5:20 and Isa 14:12-13 we still find a
conception of deified stars, very closely linked, particularly in the last case, to the originally pan-Semitic belief of a 'mount of congregation in the side of the north'.
One can find the same meaning for kokab in earlier Hebrew too.
http://www.actforlibraries.org/the-hebrew-names-of-the-seven-planets/
All planets shine in some form to the ancients. Note Mercury.
https://askjohnmackay.com/planets-why-does-the-bible-only-mention-the-creation-of-stars-and-not-the-planets/
'mount of congregation in the side of the north' - another option - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+25%3A22%2CExodus+29%3A42%2CExodus+29%3A43&version=NIV
Mount Zion.
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.14.13?lang=bi&with=Rashi&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.14.13?lang=bi&p2=Radak_on_Isaiah.14.13.3&lang2=bi
"The Old Testament contains no more than the preceding concerning Hebrew Astronomy. Of Hebrew astrology before the Babylonian exile, it contains not a word; for the passage Isa. xlvii. 13, wherein astrologers are evidently meant by "the astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators," is regarded by most scholars as post-exilic. This may perhaps indicate that the ancient Hebrews possessed no astrology; at all events, what is known of the astrology of the later Hebrews shows Assyro-Babylonian influence, as is illustrated by the fact that Mercury, for instance, is called "the star," just as the Assyro-Babylonians designate him simply as "the planet.""
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2052-astronomy
1) Concerning the first link (actforlibraries), that is not evidence for the biblical use of kokab, is it? Talmud and Jews in the later Roman emprire are too late to dictate how scripture employs kokab.
2) Sorry, but John McKay's discussion also does not prove that kokab has the meaning "planet" in the Bible. His explanation actually focuses more on the Greek aster.
3) From the Dictioinary of Biblical Imagery:
"The nearly seventy references to stars in the Bible highlight
their status among the heavenly bodies. In a large number
of instances, stars are mentioned with one or both of their
familiar companions in the skies—the sun and the moon.
Together these three were created by God to rule the day
and night (Gen 1:16–18; Ps 136:9; Jer 31:35)."
See Isa. 40:26
From The Hebrew Conception of the World (page 83):
"At the outset of this inquiry, let it be said, that insufficient information is at hand to supply an answer to the main questions regarding the terms used to designate the planets. The present study proposes to collect and to synthesize the principal etymological and scriptural material bearing on the subject. In a single brief chapter it is impossible, however, to treat all aspects of the matter and to discuss the extent of foreign influence which determined the Hebrews' view about the celestial bodies."
So, what we do have is planets that are called stars?
Job 38:31–33
Wasn't practical knowledge available?
Job 38:31 NWT - "Or guide the Ash constellation along with its >>>sons?<<<"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&pg=PA18&dq=job+38:32+sons&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM2c-24ZfgAhXbSxUIHR8wBIkQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=job%2038%3A32&f=false
See page 203 for Job 38:32 mazzarot & the lateness of "cluster".
Writers of the Hebrew Bible may have been silent about the existence of planets or they might have used terms that are less than clear to us.
I believe that quote from NWT is Job 38:32 rather than 38:31.
That book, "The Hebrew Conception of the World" also contains a discussion on mazzarot and its possible denotation.
Should have said - See page 203 for Job 38:32 mazzarot & the lateness of "constallation".
I will have a look at the conception book.
https://ec.aciprensa.com/wiki/Astronomía_en_la_Biblia
I'm about done with this thread, and will consider your observations. I found one more work written by Moshe Bernstein, Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran, page 398:
at times the targum inserts a word which creates balance between the clauses, something which the later targumim do very frequently; thus Job 38:7 ברן יחד כוכבי בקר ויריעו כל בנ “ ,אלהים when the morning stars sang together, and all the celestial beings shouted,” lacks the adverb “,יחדtogether,” in the second half line, so the targum adds it. In the same verse, we note, the targum renders בני אלהים as “, מלאכי אלהאangels of God,” showing that it stands in the same broad
tradition of Jewish translation as the septuagint to Gen 6:2, as well as Job 1:6, 2:1 and our passage, that interpreted “sons of god” as “angels.”20
Angel/Moses
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/2nd/papers/bernstein97.html
ttps://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/19901/2/Walsh%252C%2520Matthew%2520L%25202016%2520June%2520PhD%2520Religious%2520Studies.pdf
From the Bernstein article: "Strugnell distinguishes these works from Jubilees and 11QT: in Jubilees the dictating angel is the pseudepigraphic author, while in 11QT it is apparently God. In both cases, then, 'Moses functions only as an amanuensis.'"
Brief discussion of Job 38:7 here by Mark Smith: https://books.google.com/books?id=S6y9CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=ugaritic+baal+cycle+morning+stars&source=bl&ots=G0y56zSBgB&sig=ACfU3U34M1NANC17hd9eCRPvV1xwWEyLmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjrYbruJ7gAhWuVN8KHdW8Dq8Q6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=ugaritic%20baal%20cycle%20morning%20stars&f=false
I think one my last posts does not work as a link.
See:- https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/19901
Just demonstrates the kind of thinking at the time that may affect interpretation & translation at the time. I
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z1gzCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT178&lpg=PT178&dq=ugarit+astar+the+morning+star&source=bl&ots=Lv33iDseQ3&sig=ACfU3U35CLns_RcEyt9XAOE4_tbsEMoinw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBnrHhtqDgAhWOUBUIHSMkCEkQ6AEwH3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=ugarit%20astar%20the%20morning%20star&f=false
Daughters of the morning star.
Thanks, Duncan. I keep reading about this suggestion that "the shining one" (of Isaiah 14) or "morning star" is Venus. But in addition to problems of even rendering the passage as "morning star," etc., I also wonder why the ancient Hebrew prophets would have been moved to make such an identification in view of the fact that calling Venus the morning star probably was a later convention.
I would have thought the point is that the identification of "mornings stars" were the most prominent of "stars" in the morning - can you think of any others?. Nomenclature is just our label for it.
Isaiah 14 imagery could well be based on falling stars or meteors. If they did not shine we would not see them. I think we have already touched on the Hittite sword god - metal from a meteor.
Don't think there is much else to say on this at the moment. Other evidence seems lacking.
I think that is exactly what the morning star/morning stars are supposed to be--the most prominent morning stars or "star" in the case of Venus, which is also the evening star (Hesperus). But it's also easy to miss the point of why Isaiah is employing such language. The explanation that makes the most sense to me for Isaiah 14 is that the prophet is referring to a line of Babylonian kings (i.e., a dynasty) rather than just one king and he is not directly referring to Satan either.
Maybe we should not press the imagery too much, but Isaiah's reason for writing has to be remembered. One other thing is that it seems that Isaiah's focus is much different from Job 38:7. I'm not sure that Iaiah 14 sheds much light on our understanding of 38:7.
Just been watching a video of N.T. Wright on another subjects but he quotes an interesting psalm:-
Psalm 96:11 & 12.
"At the same time let all the trees of the forest shout joyfully"
Which links to 1 Chronicles 16:33.
Can’t find the right post but I think Duncan at one point mentioned the usage of the article being significant- well according to Beduhn one use of the article is the signal to your readers you are still referring to the same thing you were previously - one example I can find is John 19:7
Where the article is not used in the first instance of the word “law” but is in the second - yet they both refer to the same thing
Judges has a similar thing in the lxx when the angel of the lord appears it is frequently without the article aswell as with.
Post a Comment